Questions about Preterism

[Genni]

Lee wrote: "Definitely not how I interpret Revelation, Jake!

And Joshua, I agree with most of what you say.

Genni, there is a surprising order that has been discovered in Revelation. The presentation isn't c..."

Hehe...nice teaser! :-)

[Jake]

Genni wrote: "Jake, your questions are similar to mine, please let me know if you figure it out! :-)"

For the time being my whole eschatology is this:

'But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.'

[Robert]

Good Jake - mine is: "one day ever knee shall bow" (the recalcitrant end up in the Lake of Fires)

[Joshua]

so how does one bow the knee and still end up in the lake of fire?

[Rod]

Will Satan bow the knee? Many people are forced to bow before Kings they despise.

[Joshua]

I don't think Paul saw it that way, he said every knee shall bow and every tongue confess Jesus as Lord. You can't sidestep Paul's clear theology that those who confess Jesus as Lord will be saved.

[Rod]

The same group of people who do much in Jesus' name ----- but get rejected?

God is pretty impressive. People will hate him but have to admit it.

[Joshua]

That right there is why Matthew gets discussed in my book. Paul's theology was different to Matthew's, whoever Matthew really was.

Jesus said whoever comes to Him, He will by no means turn away. John 6:37

[Robert]

Joshua - I think you misinterpreted my post. I meant every bent knee was indeed saved. The recalcitrant were those who failed to kneel when commanded by our Savior to do so.

[Joshua]

I see,

I was using the opportunity to point out the disconnect in "law camp" theology. Isaiah is clear that every knee will indeed bend.

[Paul]

The idea that Satan — assuming for the sake of argument such a being exists — will be saved is not a new one in Christian theology. Gregory of Nyssa argued it. Satan, being a creation of God, must contain a spark (somewhere, deep down, presumably) of the goodness that God affirmed in all of his creation, and if Satan were to be damned forever/annihilated, that would be a vanquishing of God's goodness. Which, of course, is impossible. So, according to Gregory, when God says (through Paul) that all will be reconciled to God in the end, he really meant it.

[Joshua]

fascinating

[Rod]

Satan be saved? That would mean God is somewhat confused.

Matthew 25:
41"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;

Gregory of Nyssa argued it: Therefore he's gotta be one of the worst theologians and Bible scholars in history.
(Apparently Gregory argued many strange theories. But he did have a thing or two correct - But so did Calvin and Luther.)

I would love to know what Gregory thinks of Hebrew 9:27
27And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,

Apparently judgement for Satan and Jesus haters isn't that big a deal. Just a minor obstacle to eternal bliss.

[Lee]

Rod wrote: "Gregory of Nyssa argued it: Therefore he's gotta be one of the worst theologians and Bible scholars in history. "

Rod, do you ever consider how arrogant the things you say sound?

[Rod]

I agree Lee.

Thankfully the Apostle Paul was THE most arrogant theologian in history.

[Rod]

Just curious Lee:

If I argued a point that you think fully disagrees with huge portions of scripture, would you say:

"Rod of Canada argued it: Therefore He's gotta be one of the worst theologians and Bible scholars in history."

I'm not even sure you would give me that MUCH credit. Thankfully my ideas are seldom original - thanks to John MacArthur and Chuck Swindol.

[Robert]

Rod of Canada has a nice ring to it but needs more alliteration - sorta like the Firth of Forth!

[Rod]

Baha! Thanks Robert.

[Lee]

Rod, I'm just sayin'...in your mind, Gregory is a horrible theologian, Einstein is a horrible physicist, Darwin is a horrible biologist, apparently anyone who doesn't subscribe to your quaint, simplistic view of the world is an idiot. How can anyone possibly take you seriously?

[Rod]

Lee if YOU take me seriously then something is wrong... or about to be right.

So the fun question is:
Who is a good theologian?
Who is a good physicist?
who is a good biologist?

Lee it's all about the Bible and what it has to say about Jesus/God/Holy Spirit and US. Everything else is a secondary issue.

[Paul]

The assumption that Gregory of Nyssa did NOT have scriptural backing for his arguments is what strikes me as arrogant. Nyssa read all of the same hell texts you have, Rod. He just understood that those texts don't actually speak of hell lasting forever, and that God's punishment in the OT unfailingly ends in restoration, not torment or destruction.

[Robert]

Rod - you go one bridge too far! Of course, it's all about the Bible to understand precisely what characteristics the Lord expects of a God-fearing Christian. Beyond that we all have a mission which might include world-class biologist, loving husband and father, and general pillar of the community. God expects us to contribute our spiritual gifts for the good of His faith community. You act as if no one has the Biblical part quite down pat so cannot precede past that point. Guess I shouldn't have written my Science/Religion book to glorify God, but instead wear blinders with Scripture inscribed on the inside of them so I can't be distracted by anything else.

[Rod]

Robert the genius part is: why does no one quite have the Biblical part perfect?

This affects apologetics incredibly. There are no 2 theologians in history that agree on everything - what is God up to? I think I know... Or have a crazy guess.

But as we know - some people are just plain Wrong. Now you can get back to praying for Satan's salvation... It's inevitable!!! God is love. Bahahaha - "cough, gag"

[Robert]

Could it be, Rod, that no one needs to get the Biblical part perfectly? Sometimes I think the simple-minded, homespun, uneducated Christians have the secret. Just love the plastic Jesus on your dashboard and follow the Golden Rule - all the rest is wretched excess!

[Erick]

I like Gregory Of Nyssa quite a bit. I like Origen too. I have actually read quite a bit of both. I prefer the Alexandrians and the Cappadocians to the Latin fathers. Indeed, I prefer both to Augustine. That being said, I reject ideas like universal salvation, the preexistence of the soul, etc. In these instances the few Alexandrians and Cappadocians that accepted these doctrines were in the minority. They were not without validation scripturally in believing what they believed, however. Eschatology is an ambiguous subject and Christians have often not see eye to eye on it. The question is always whether they interpreted the texts in question accurately. The majority of church fathers would have to say "no" in regards to the question of universal salvation. It's an interesting question and I've investigated it myself. In the end I must reject it for the same reason why I reject Calvinism: it does away with freewill (i.e. forced to be saved, forced to be damned etc). There are other problems with the doctrine besides that; but getting into all of that would be too involved. I have to stress that even though I reject universal salvation, I also don't accept the typical Protestant take on these matters either.

[Rod]

Robert laying down:
" Just love the plastic Jesus on your dashboard and follow the Golden Rule - all the rest is wretched excess! "

Now we need some great over-educated scholars to breakdown this dashboard doctrine and see how it plays out for eternity. Hilarious! Robert wouldn't this be a great cult? Could have its own t.v. show.

P.S.: atheists claim to own the golden rule now...they are fighting Buddhists for it. (hopefully to the DEATH!) WE need more Samurai movies...

[Rod]

IT is amazing how many church fathers and classic historians have such huge emotional investments in the building of their theology.

I attempt to do theology with a total lack of emotional insecurity. Somewhat dangerous but revealing.

[Paul]

Yep, Rod is the only one who's managed not to have any emotional investment in how his theology is built. We all bow before your pure objectivity.

[Rod]

Thanks Paul - I was hoping you would. (although you come across as VERY emotionally invested in this).

[Paul]

Invested? Yes. Emotionally invested? Perhaps. VERY emotionally invested? Not sure how to quantify that, but probably not.

In short, I don't think I am any more emotionally invested in my worldview, theology and eschatology than you are, and I don't think either of us is any more (or less) emotionally invested than the early Christian writers. The trick is recognizing that, rather than pretending to be above the cultural, emotional and ideological assumptions that colors each of our perspectives.

[Rod]

Paul's comment:
" The trick is recognizing that, rather than pretending to be above the cultural, emotional and ideological assumptions that colors each of our perspectives."

Indeed, how to step outside of our assumptions and recognize what's before us.
In many ways this is the ultimate challenge of all apologetic ministry: How to get people to think beyond Islam, Atheism, Buddhism, secular materialism, Mormonism, liberalism... and needy desperate Christianity.

[Paul]

How to get people to think beyond Islam, Atheism, Buddhism, secular materialism, Mormonism, liberalism... and needy desperate Christianity.

And arrogant, insular Christianity.

[Rod]

Paul's quote:
"And arrogant, insular Christianity."

Sometimes that's the same as Truthful Christianity. Jesus was incredibly arrogant. So was Paul, John, Stephen, Elijah, Moses, etc...

[Robert]

Rod - Faith is relatively simple; it's molding it into an all-encompassing doctrine that presents a unified, coherent defense against all secular challenges that is hard. Enter apologetics, but it's only marginally up to the task.

[Genni]

I have begun reading your book, Lee. :-)

[Lee]

Genni wrote: "I have begun reading your book, Lee. :-)"

:)